US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[NJJ]

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

I find it hard to believe the courts are ruling the way they are. The interpretation should be very much like the last game in the movie "RollerBall". It was for the championship and they initiated special rules, i.e., THERE ARE NO RULES. The players on each side could do anything they wanted and there were no penalties.

This is what our founders meant so that NO LAWS (restictions) could be made regarding religion. It is in fact the only way it can be made even. People or groups could do anything in the way of religion that they wanted, as long as they did not violate the laws of man. This also included legislators, executors and judges.

[xzins]

I like your post NJJ. Very clear. Thanks.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

First of all, I don't trust any church. I believe your flesh is your temple. Tithing to a manmade church is not something I'd call a good idea, unless you know exactly how that money is being spent and generally approve of the spending. Not to mention, some people simply can't afford to tithe. I hear all kinds of wonder stories about tithing. But I also hear about a lot of corruption in various churches. Did Saint Francis ask for money? All he asked for was rocks to build his church with.

"Civilizations are not eternal, because they just aren't. Only the kingdom of heaven is. "

I agree. We must avoid Marius and Sulla. We must also avoid people who seek to herd outsiders and dodos into the voting booth. We must consider our nation's mortality, and plan on how to make it remain free another century. Only heavan is eternal, which is why we must make it clear that our nation seeks God's leadership. I don't mean Jerry Falwell's leadership. [Although he is right in many ways.] I don't mean any one mortal's leadership. I'm simply saying that the more we turn to God, even using generic symbols in our government buildings, the better.

"I believe in multi-culturalism. This very nation was built on the sweat and toil of outsiders. Chinese, Black, Italian, Russian, Polish. I want ethnicity to both blend and thrive."

I believe in the Great American Melting Pot. Every new group that comes in learns how to get along with a single culture. For example, the kid who plays his hard rock or rap music sooner or later learns that people think he's a jerk. The hot rod with the loud engine eventually finds out the boss hates his guts. Some never learn. But thank God most people do learn, except in cities, where loud noise is the norm. Most people learn English, so that we all understand what the politicians are saying before we vote. Each culture, in this melting pot, brings in new ideas-- that has been the case since the beginning. People try new music, new food, new lifestyles, new innovations from other lands all the time. Americans expect rapid change, unlike anywhere else on earth. Most cultures that come here-- the ones who refuse to blend in, are the ones who resist rapid change. Look at the Amish, for example. While I respect their culture, they are not exactly something I want to immitate. But that is the essense of being American.

Multiculturalism appears so inclusive and benign, so wise and world-travelled. But the truth is, it's a hate-America trick. We have survived racial tensions in the past. The racial tensions with Ireland were considerable.

But here is the danger: California is on the verge of becoming our Kosovo. You mentioned that we 'swindled' California from the Mexicans. Do you realise how dangerous it is if enough Mexicans try to swindle it back? No one would win. It would become a war zone. Multiculturalists would drive a wedge through the US. That would only stretch out the conflict. The UN would see an opportunity to weaken us. In the end, the US would win, but the hatred between the US and Mexico would be Islamic level. Mexican nationals would lash out with terror attacks. That would be their only recourse.

[rebel]

The Christian religion calls on the leaders of nations to acknowledge their reliance on Him. The Alabama constitution does that. That is what Judge Moore is standing up for.

I the federal government will not allow a state to acknowledge reliance and dependence on God it is tyrannical and has lost all moral authority.

The only authority is has flows from the barrel of a gun. An authority based on power alone.

The nation that is in conflict with God will not stand.

God will not be mocked.

[Lost Highway]

---

Lost Highway: In your opinion does whatever particular part of the Constitution being considered have a fixed meaning based on the words or is the meaning whatever 9 supreme court justices say it is? <

---

Labyrinthos:The constitution would not work if had a fixed meaning based upon the words because words often have different meaning to different people under different circumstances. That's why we have Supreme Court.If SCOTUS rules against the popular will, then the people can amend the constitution to overule the SCOTUS; and if SCOTUS misinterprets congressional intent, then congress can pass remedial legislation to correct the error.

The Free Speech clause of the 1st Amendment is a good example. The words are straight forward and without exception, yet SCOTUS has drawn many exceptions over the years by going beyond the plain meaning of the words. If the SCOTUS is irrelevant as you suggest, then we really need only two branches of federal government. And if SCOTUS can't look beyond the precise words in the text, then it has no basis for the "fighting words" and national security" exceptions to the free speech clause.

---

I certainly agree with you that there are things that need to be interpreted by the SCOTUS. Sticking with the 1st amendment, the word establishment is one that can mean different things to different people. But two words that are not subject to interpretation are Congress and law. In the context of the Constitution Congress is clearly the body of duly elected representatives in the Senate and House. Law is clearly legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. Clearly the phrase "Congress shall make no law" qualifies everything following. The 1st amendment is clearly saying that Congress cannot pass laws that abridge the items following. The only way one can get to where we are now is to inerpret that for some reason Congress doesn't actually mean Congress. And that law doesn't actually mean law. Which renders the Constitution irrelevent.

[VRWC_minion]

Tell me friend, what good is a cell phone in a blackout? What good are PDA's after the power runs dry? Or what good is your car if there is no gas left in it?

The knowledge of how to dial my phone has not been lost when the lights went out and in fact I used my cell phone during the last black out.

You are operating under several false premises. The first false premise is that cultures are better when they aborb both the good and bad of all other cultures. The second is your concept that our current forms of government and economy are somehow static like those of the past monarchy's and will be replaced in some distant future when in fact our current gov't is "overthrown" every six years and our fudalistic dynasty's (corporations) are being overthrown every day in the market.

Then there is silly false premise that energy sources and other resources are limited and in some date in the future we will run out of them.

Your ideas are based on false facts and fallacies and have led you into a sea of ignorance. Most likely these false ideas were planted in you by folks who are marxists.

Your final false premise is that I fear marxism, socialists etc. In the short run they are a concern but in the long run their ideas and beliefs will fail because they are contrary to human nature.

[VRWC_minion]

But to give off the impression that they were great scientitist BECAUSE they were Christian is short sighted.

I agree, the most world changing scientist discovers are from the Jews. I never made the case that only christians are great scientists. I will state that christians are great scientists and when taken as a whole Christianity has moved science forward as much or more than any other state or religion.

The harm of Christianity to the progress of humanity is in the people, not the message. Its in the politics of the establishment.

What is the "progress of humanity" ? I cannot respond to some undefined term that has no specific meaning.

The Church, throughout history has been used as a political animal and has been used as instruments of repression and corruption (much like any other establishment). Is the Church bad? Sometimes. Is the Christian Church bad? Sometimes. But so is the Muslim establishment and the Hindu Establishment. Corruption has not color or creed.

I agree, whats your point ?

I try not to condescend.You are sure putting on a good act.

[hedgetrimmer]

I also see the irony in telling the previous inhabitants to get off the land we rightfully swindled.

The Vallejos were one of the most important and respected families in early Mexican California history, and they also played an important part in the development of California as a state in the Union. General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo held the highest military post as Commanding General in Alta California where be served as watchdog of the northern California province, charged with keeping an eye upon the activities of the Russians at Fort Ross. But also, he was a delegate to the first state constitutional convention that met in 1849 at Colton Hall in Monterey. He was the partner of Robert Semple in laying out the town site of Benicia. General Vallejo welcomed the Americans in California because he believed their support would bring growth and stability to the region and that California would benefit thereby. Other Vallejo family members successfully made the transition from Mexican California to the California of the United States. The General's younger brother, Captain Salvador Vallejo who had led field operations under the Mexican flag against dissident Indian tribes, later became a Major in the Union army and saw service during the Civil War. The Vallejos realized that the ties with Mexico were too loose, that California was an isolated outpost of the Mexican government, and that the future of California lay in close association and union with the United States. Certainly, the growth and progress made in California since that time attest to the great foresight of General Mariano Vallejo.

"No matter where they settle, Americans create a little bit of heaven," said General Vallejo.
http://www.militarymuseum.org/Vallejo.html

California was not swindled from Mexico. Californios wanted to become part of the United States, and made it so. "Though the Vallejo name is immortalized by the California city of that name, California still owes a great debt of gratitude for the accomplishments of these men whose lives bridged the periods of Mexican California and the beginnings of American California. Certainly, Mariano and Salvador Vallejo deserve to be among those listed as the founding fathers of California."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Falwell was a strong leader regarding the partial birth abortion ban and defunding the NEA. You touch one hair on his aXX, and you will have a furniture manufacturer kick you from Lynchburg into the Dan River.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Whatever...It's so easy to call me a Marxist."

I agree with that to a point. People who have been conservative all their lives often have trouble telling marxism from liberals or centrists. That's because there's a deep stain of marxism in liberalism, in movies, in TV news, in the NYT, in schools, in colleges, in think tanks, abd even in mainstream magazines. It's hard to tell the two apart. Having been an actual tree hugger, yes, I was that liberal at one time, having been so concerned about overpopulation I had supported abortion, having once thought that "The Rich Get Richer and the poor get poorer" was actually in the Bible, having been the son of one of Nader's Raiders, I realise that Falwell-hating non-conservatives are actually human beings who do not necessarilly have busts of Carl Marx in their dens.

But I also now understand the confusion. Once someone understands the importance of a strong GNP, a strong military, strong intelligence, and most importantly, a strong bond between our nation's leaders and God-- what this thread is all about.

Sure, Moore might be trying to appeal to conservatives like a cynical politician. But he might not be. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, because what he stands for is nothing but good. What he is up against is scum. It's really that simple. The scum is trying to isolate him with litigious maneuverings, with brute force, with tyranny, with a twisting of what the Constitution means.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"A broken clock is right twice a day. Some people say Hitler had some good ideas, too."

Falwell isn't perfect, but nobody is. Comparing him to Hitler or a broken clock, I'm afraid you need to work on yourself before you're in a position to feel superior to him. Seriously. I might check in later. Maybe not. We are talking in circles at this point. FReegards....

[Chuckster]

Living on a sailboat!! The good life. Where do you sail?

You're gonna hate this: My boat is moored in the Ala Wai Marina in Waikiki, Honolulu, Hawaii. I've lived aboard now for thirteen years. I mostly daysail off Diamond Head, occasionally inter-island when I have time.

[viaveritasvita]

Regarding the golden calf as a replacement for the 10 commandments.....

Unfortunately, that would probably be a more realistic representation of where the hearts and minds of many Americans (including some who refer to themselves as Christians) is focused! Of course, the fact that it was a baaaad idea the first time around would mean absolutely nothing to the lefties!!

Where is our modern day Moses??

<><